Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:33 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheism vs. the Quran
#21
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
Rayan how can you claim the Qu'ran is infallible if it has as many mistakes as the bible?
Reply
#22
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm)Ashendant Wrote: Rayan how can you claim the Qu'ran is infallible if it has as many mistakes as the bible?



George Orwell called it 'doublethink'. It's the opposite of cognitive dissonance..

Many believers have also developed the ability to blithely ignore any evidence which conflicts with whatever set of myths they happen to believe.Which particular set is almost invariably an accident of birth.The names Ray Comfort-the-fatuous and Little-Kirky-Cameron-the-developmentally-impaired come to mind.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


Quote:In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs, often in distinct social contexts[1]. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Reply
#23
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 10, 2010 at 3:56 am)padraic Wrote:
(December 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm)Ashendant Wrote: Rayan how can you claim the Qu'ran is infallible if it has as many mistakes as the bible?



George Orwell called it 'doublethink'. It's the opposite of cognitive dissonance..

Many believers have also developed the ability to blithely ignore any evidence which conflicts with whatever set of myths they happen to believe.Which particular set is almost invariably an accident of birth.The names Ray Comfort-the-fatuous and Little-Kirky-Cameron-the-developmentally-impaired come to mind.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


Quote:In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs, often in distinct social contexts[1]. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

It's like Fr0d0's idea of the agnostic who both fully believes and disbelieves there is a God Smile
.
Reply
#24
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 3, 2010 at 1:22 pm)Rayaan Wrote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Are you kidding me? Do you know how many miscarried foetuses there would have been for people to look at? The Maori (my countries native population) used to have ritual burials for them over a thousand years ago, they've found graves of dozens of them in various stages of development... Knowing rudimentary things about foetal development IS NOT the domain of revelation.

It's not rudimentary knowledge for people who lived 14 centuries ago...

Oh, so what was rudimentary to a primitive population 10 centuries ago was not rudimentary to a less primitive population 400 years earlier? Yeah, that makes so much sense Rayaan...

I'll at least give the Arabs of the time some credit, they were more intelligent and aware than the Maori from 1000CE, and the Maori figured it out with no concept of science at all, just simple association. Man ejaculates in woman, something grows in the woman's stomach (evinced by expansion) and then a baby exits some time later, plus they had the miscarriages corresponding to different sized female stomachs and a sense of time.

There is absolutely no need for revelation or electron microscopes, any old cannibal with half a clue about reality (they thoughts mountains were alive...) could figure it out, all that says about o'l Pedo Mo is he is at the least as intelligent as a cannibal tribesman knocking about in the pacific, so congratulations!

Quote:"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that you may reach your age of full strength." (Surah 22:05)

If the Quran was invented by men who lived in such a primitive age, then, shouldn't there be at least a single scientific error in the verse above?

The first error is the very first event described... There is no "dust" stage, or is that a reference to the Muslim Genesis? either way it's false.

Dust -> Sperm -> Clot -> Flesh -> Time -> Baby

What part of that is supposed to be impressive? The only 'accurate' points are Sperm, Time and Baby. Big fucking deal, every culture knew that. I bet most animals have the capacity to gather than association. At least a mention of the process involved would have been nice, No big trouble for Allah to describe "splitting cells" now is it?

Quote:1. It's more time-saving to post quotes and links instead of elaborating it myself.

Except you've failed to post any arguments, just conclusions and assertions. If there is an argument you like then post it, but snippets of opinion are completely useless.

Quote:2. Why is it a bad thing to quote from people who are intelligent in a certain field (or "authorities" as you say) if it is coming from a credible source?

Because if we are going to go back and forth with authorities instead of posting the arguments themselves for evaluation then as far as science is concerned we will win every single time because the number of scientists who are atheists outnumber theistic scientists, however, that would make it a twice fallacious argument, both an argument from authority and an argument from popularity.

Also, posting links doesn't show you have any understanding of what it is you are arguing. You're just like the people who come here with a wall of text from some creationist website.

Quote:3. It's always better if we can support our views with the opinions of more knowledgeable people than ourselves. Isn't that what we are taught to do in research papers?

In research papers you use references to build an argument, you are bypassing that stage completely and going straight to the conclusions and opinion.

I specifically said that it's acceptable to post an argument, but what some MD thinks is of no consequence, for example, I can find MD's who believe all sorts of stupid shit from ESP to Alien abductions to Geocentricism to Vaccines cause autism, is that evidence for any of those things? No, posting it would just be demonstrating that there exists someone with that view, that is exactly what you've been doing.


Quote:Dunking flies into your drink? ... yeah, actually it doesn't make any sense.

Neither do flying unicorns.

Quote:Yes, Muhammad didn't write a single word because he was illiterate. He recited the verses that were revealed to him, and a lot of the people who heard him began to memorize the verses while his appointed scribes were busy with putting them into a book form.

That's wrong, the Quran was not put together during his life time.

And there is nothing to rule out either 1) It was a person who read to him 2) He could read and lied 3) He made up his own theology (or claimed authority) based on his understanding of the Torah and NT and his own opinion.

3 Has happened several times, notably with Joseph Smith.

Quote:1. How do you know that Muhammad had a series of revelations?

How do you know he wasn't a greedy bastard who made it up for power?

Is it not told in the Qur'an that he had 6 months of visions?

Not only that but there is the story where he had a revelation and convinced some Arab tribes that they could follow Islam and still worship their tribal gods, then he had another revelation and changed his mind, followed by threats to the new tribal Muslims to renounce their other previously permitted deities.

And there is also the part were he married his daughter-in-law and was scorned for it by the community because it contradicted the previous laws he had set out, that was until he had a revelation with Allah's approval....

Or how about when he was conquering tribes, decapitating people and taking slaves near the end of his life? He had several revelations then.

He's quite clearly making it up as he goes.

Quote:2. How do you know that his wives had noticed any such revelations? And where did you learn this from?

It's in the Qur'an, there are dozens of examples of post-hoc revelations.

Quote:3. What are these "interests at the time" that he had which you are speaking of?

Marrying his step daughter as I mentioned above.

Quote:4. If we assume that he managed to convince a bunch of illiterate Arabs that God spoke to him, then it contradicts your statement that all the verses in the Quran are only being "attritubted" to Mohammad, because you just said that he convinced people to believe that he was talking to God.

The passages being attributed to mo simply means that after his death when the content was being gathered many people bought forth things that had been believed to have said, being over 100 years after his death there wasn't an eye witness in sight, so undoubtedly some of what is attributed to him was not his own words, much of it was from the Torah and a great deal of it was likely genuine or very close to what he meant.

The fact that he convinced people he was a prophet has no impact on that process or that.

Quote:5. And who could be these mysterious authors of the Quran if the book was neither transmitted from God nor Muhammad?

You need a dictionary, look up attributed. It does not mean "necessarily incorrect" which is what you seem to be using it to mean. And don't fool yourself Rayaan, a huge portion of it was from the Torah and NT, perhaps the majority, so there are those authors as well as passages that were attributed to (meaning not necessarily from) mo.

Quote:What about the embryo? Isn't the shape of the embryo too small to be seen by the naked eyes? Also, why was this confirmed only in the last century?

Fetus =/= Embryo.

Clot =/= Embryo or Fetus.

And inferring a stage between sperm and fetus isn't much of a stretch. It's like inferring something happened to a tire if you've seen it first deflated and then inflated. Neither is assuming it's made of the same stuff as us (flesh).

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: They have trained you well have they not? Because you're really fucking good at retreating to authority whenever you want to support your beliefs.

There's no training involved, I just got good at it by myself.
But you make it sound as if retreating to authorities is a bad thing. What's the reason for that?

It is the way you are doing it, which I have already explained. The arguments are what matter and not whether you can find a person with a vaguely relevant qualification who agrees.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Again, if you think there is an argument that supports your conclusions then PRESENT THE ARGUMENT IT'S SELF and not just a quote from someone saying that they agree with the argument.

I did present the arguments as well as backing them up with credible and trustable sources. What else are you looking for?

Re post what it is you think was an argument. All you had was a doctor asserting a position. That is not an argument.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: You are truly the fallacy king.

I disagree, but think whatever you want about me. I know myself better than you do.

Your fallacies are demonstrable and objective, unlike your opinion about whether or not they exist.

Quote:It's not actually purely subjective. There's an objective way to test if one's work is better than the Quran.

See this:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/M.../ijaz.html

The challenge is to produce, in Arabic, "three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook."

I shouldn't even need to point out how utterly arbitrary that is, but it was so fucking easy to refute that I couldn't resit. Again with reference to the Confucians.

Refutation by parallel argument:

The challenge is to produce a Traditional Chinese Confucian poem of less than thirteen lines than contain all possible dictates regarding how a junior should treat a senior, without forming incomplete sentences or resembling any of the classics in language or style or becoming self-refuting, hasty or rhetorical.

If you can't do that Confucian teachings are all true and necessarily divinely inspired, agreed?

Quote:That means you couldn't think of something more intelligent to say ...

You said almost the exact same thing already, I didn't see the benefit in repeating myself that often.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Why don't you pick out the very best verse in the Quran and we'll beat that k?

The smallest chapter in the Quran is only 3 lines, and no one has yet been able to write something better than that chapter given the style of the Quran.

What is this verse?
what makes it good?
who decided that it was good and by what standard?
why does it have to be in arabic?
Why does it have to be in the style of the quran?
Why only 3 lines?

I offer you another challenge. Can you think of a 5 word combination that has more meaning than the following:

“star-stuff contemplating the stars” - Carl Sagan.

If not atheism is true by default, according to your reasoning anyway. And we get to decide what is good, just like you've been claiming the right to for islam.

Quote:Or maybe they do exist, but you can't see them. The Jinns are a part of the unseen world.

And you have what evidence for these Jinns? Any more than I have for the tooth fairy? I have a missing tooth that was under a pillow, what have you got?

Quote:This is not a good comparison to the Quran's challenge, because there is an objective reason on why it is not possible to imitate the Quran.

All you've done is present some entirely arbitrary conditions and claim that they are "objectively good". I have provided two refutations by parallel argument already. It's your turn to deal with them now.

Quote:"The inability of any person to produce anything like the Qur’an, due to the uniqueness of its language, is the essence of the Qur’anic miracle. A miracle is defined as 'events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature'. The argument posed by Muslim Theologians and Philosophers is that if, with the finite set of Arabic linguistic tools at humanity’s disposal, there has been no effective challenge to try and imitate the Qur'an, then providing a naturalistic explanation for the Qur’an’s uniqueness is not sufficient. This is because the natural capacity of any author is able to produce the varying expressions known in the Arabic language. The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation" (Source).

Again, ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz

And no, it's not because I've got nothing else to say, it's because you're a little parrot.
Quote:The Quran is awesome whether you believe it or not.

In your opinion. Too bad you're the only one here trying to pretend it's anything other than opinion.

Quote: Here's another quote for you:

“....the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Muhammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evidential miracle” (Hamilton Gibb, a well-known Arabist from University of Oxford).

Another form of the same parallel argument:

Can you make better used of these 5 arbitrary words than Carl Sagan?

1. Stuff
2. Contemplating
3. Stars
4. The
5. Stars

If you can't make a more meaningful combination of these arbitrary constraints then Carl Sagan was obviously more than human. And furthermore, people who already believe Sagan was the epitome of awesomeness get to decide (because we want to be as blatantly biased as you, after all this is a parallel argument and we can't be seen to be less fallacious).

Quote:You can't read my mind and I can safely say that you're wrong if you think that I'm being biased. You may still disagree, though.

And I am not biased in my assessment than Sagan > Mo and that The Demon Haunted world > the Quran.

See, and you can't read my mind so you can't claim otherwise, I win!

Btw, I love having the chance to use all these parallel arguments, it's not often something leaves it's self so widely open to such easy refutation. Thank you Islam & Puppets!

Quote:1. Yes, but the historical accuracy of the Quran's preservation is much greater than any other holy books.

Says who?

Quote:2. You still didn't give any good arguments on why the Quran is a counterfeit (but only making some conjectures without citing from anything).

I never claimed it was counterfeit as a whole, some of it is definitely original, unless you are referring to the sections from the OT and NT? There are some sections that are almost verbatim from that book of Hebrew.

Quote:Can you show me any references or citations to verify that claim? If not, then why should I believe you?

He was betrothed to Ashia at 5 and consummated at 9. It's in the Quran, go have a look.

Quote:So, when I make a statement of my own, it's the "personal credulity" fallacy. And when I back up my statements by using other sources, it's the "argument from authority" fallacy. How clever.

You said "I'm just convinced" or something along those lines. A statement of your own would not be credulity, but that statement is practically the definition of credulity.

Quote:You should at least give a reason on why it's a bare assertion.

You offered nothing in support.

Quote:I said that the people who have ill notions about Muhammad (pbuh) are not knowledgeable about the history of his life.

There are plenty of ex-Muslim scholars who have contributed most of the "ill notions" about ol' Mo. There are secular and Christian historians who think the same.

Quote: But instead of proving that sentence wrong, you just simply threw out the words "bare assertion" even though I've already said that there are many authentic biographical information about him which negate the idea that he was an evil person.

Because that is exactly what it was. You made the assertion that nobody who thinks ill of mo knows much about his life and you offered nothing in support of that assertion (which is the "bare" part). A more perfect example of a bare assertion is hard to find.

Quote:Base Assertion Fallacy. <- (See, I can play that stupid game also). Tongue

If you're going to accuse me of a fallacy you should at least check.

From Saihi:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. Book 8, Number 3309.

Quote:Argument from authority does not equal to a bad argument. Why don't you examine the argument itself?

Your argument has a false premise, that being an argument from authority. If the premise is false the argument is not valid.

Quote:If you truly think that, then you don't know anything about the history of the Quran. You are very incognizant of the scholarly works on the Quran.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence for the Quran before the last decade of the 6thCE. There were scant Muslim writings prior to this, but the Quran had not been devised. Carbon dating of the parchment puts it at late 665-690CE and Calligraphy at 710-725CE (likely means the parchment was not new or it was corrected).

It was believed to have been distributed by Uthman who commissioned it in approx 651CE already 20 years after Mo kicked the bucket and was not in circulation (there were 5 copies believed to have been made) until some time after it was commissioned.

And that is the TRADITIONALIST view. You don't want to know about the skeptical view, which is based on the historical critical method and puts no credible sources for the Quran until 790CE.

Quote:Again, argument from authority doesn't mean that it's a bad argument. The same thing can be said by me, a scientist, a philosophy teacher, or even by a 5th grader.

It's a logical fallacy, for example:

Historian x believes that Joseph Smith could not have invented the book Mormon, therefore it was divine revelation.

Doctor y believes that 14th CE man could not have known these facts therefore the Quran is divine revelation.

Essentially: X believes that P and X has relevant experience therefore P.

It's a fallacy, and any argument that depends on a fallacy is invalid.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: No numbnuts, you haven't satisfied your burden of proof, you've made some shockingly bad arguments.

I disagree because your counter-arguments are not strong enough to show that mines are shockingly bad.

I've addressed this already.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: The same as any other religious texts.

By that, if you mean to say that the Quran was invented by men, then, I think you have certainly failed to support that view (unlike I did with links).

There is no knowledge in the Quran that even comes close to demonstrating that it was not written by men, which is what your argument was contingent upon, it's all the same hogwash about revealed truth.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: A religious text...

Of course it's a religious text. But the question is, who's the author? I've already made my case.

And I refuted it. Address the refutations and then we'll talk.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: And i've dismantled your "points" one by one already.

Actually, you didn't dismantle the points very well. Each of the 5 points that I discussed in the original post are well-supported by scholarly research. You weren't able to show me otherwise.

Your "scholarly research" was presented in a way that was fallacious. I've explained the argument from authority and why it is a fallacy as well as why a false premise makes an argument invalid.

Like i've said before, find the arguments that these scholars use and don't just present opinion and conclusion.

Quote:
(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: You've made next to no case at all.

That's not true, because I proved with enough sources that the Quran cannot be anything else but the word of God based on the scientific, literary, and historical aspects of the Quran.

You didn't. My refutation by parallel argument makes that plainly obvious.

Quote:Anyways, be happy for all the kudoses that you got.
You deserve it for the effort, at least. But that doesn't mean that you're right. You're smart enough not to fall into the kudos fallacy. Tongue

Kudos just means people share my sentiment, not that my sentiment is necessarily true. The validity isn't contingent upon opinion...

...Unless I got Kudos from some scholars right Rayaan?
.
Reply
#25
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 10, 2010 at 3:56 am)padraic Wrote:
(December 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm)Ashendant Wrote: Rayan how can you claim the Qu'ran is infallible if it has as many mistakes as the bible?

George Orwell called it 'doublethink'. It's the opposite of cognitive dissonance.

AHHHH! Confused Fall

I've been searching for a term with the opposite meaning of cognitive dissonance! Thank you good sir.

"Faith is about taking a comforting, childlike view of a disturbing and complicated world." ~ Edward Current

[Image: Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_by_stampystampy.gif] [Image: 91b7ba0967f80c8c43c58fdf3fa0571a.gif] [Image: Secular_Humanist_by_MaruLovesStamps.gif]
Reply
#26
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: To be generous, here are the sum total of historical "facts" we know about Jesus, although it's controversial among skeptics:

Annals of Tacitus, written in the second century, briefly mentions the founder of Christianity as "the anointed one" (not even naming Jesus) and provides no details except a second hand story of how he was crucified (which Muslims claim isn't even true).

I agree with you, but your comment still doesn't negate what I said earlier, which is:

"There are a lot more authentic historical facts about Muhammad than about Jesus (peace be upon them)."

(December 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: So artists can't be crazy then?

Artists can be crazy indeed, but we're not talking about artists here. We're talking about Muhammad (pbuh). Is he crazy or not? And how do you justify this?

Also, you snipped out the comments where I said, "The verses came to him in many different places and times, not only in the cave. He heard these messages when he was at home, when he was praying, when he was fasting, when he woke up from sleep, when he was speaking to a crowd, when he was eating, walking, standing, etc." And he was hearing these verses for a span of 23 years. And the verses are not just a meaningless string of words. If that was the case, only then you could call him "crazy" (as in having a mental disease).

All the verses in the Quran make perfect sense and they are presented in a highly poetic style which not even a sane person could produce with a conscious effort.

(December 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: If you'd read my post, you'd know I've already said there are different levels of sanity. There are some people who are crazy in specific areas and yet lead normal lives otherwise. Ever seen the story about Harvey, the invisible bunny rabbit?

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that it's not possible for someone to be mentally crazy and yet hear words in Arabic in such a rhymed fashion as the verses in the Quran (for 23 years).

(December 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: So how about my musings on whether or not he lied?


Now you're trying to tell me that maybe he was a liar, whereas before, you were saying that maybe he was going through an "episode" (and thereby fooling himself that he was a prophet). But firstly, you should make up your own mind on which is a more rational theory of the two and then tell me why you think so. There are only two options: a) Muhammad was a liar, or b) He was self-deceived. But he can't be both at the same time. Why? Because if he was self-deceived, then he wouldn't lie since he would believe that the answers will be given to him by revelation.

And here's an article on "Exhausting the Alternatives," by Dr. Gary Miller.

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: Saying we are made out of "dust" is a major oversimplification. If you're going to run with this, you could also say we are made out of water. Or air. Or earth (our bodies contain minerals).

The Quran says that all creatures are made out of water, too. Oversimplification? Yes, but not incorrect.

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: And what is a drop of semen?

The arabic word for semen is "mani" whereas the word "nutfah" is a fluid-drop.

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: Then it's STILL in error. People are not created from a "fluid drop". People are created when the sperm cell joins with the ovum. This is NOT a "fluid drop". Care to try again?

The underlined words in the following verse indicate the joining of the two:

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight” (Surah 76:02).

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: Oh, please! Talk about a stretch! You go from a "mingled fluid" to "the zygote being a mixture of male and female chromosomes"?

Yeah, that's what the verse infers based on current scientific knowledge. It might be somewhat of a stretch, as you said, but it's not a contradiction.

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: I'll tell you what, find the word "chromosome" in the Koran. THAT would be scientific knowledge they couldn't have possessed!

The Quran doesn't have the word "chromosome" since such a word didn't even exist during that time. That's why the words "mingled fluid" are used in the Quran (instead of "mixed chromosomes").

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: This is a "leech-like clot" to you?
http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/u...mg0230.jpg

No, but this is more like a leech-like clot:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7654/ch11aimg1.jpg *

* Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73 (Source).

And this: http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2189/leech.jpg, which is a 24 days old human embryo.

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: That's not what it says, is it? Where does this passage say anything about "beginning to grow"? You're trying to read something into the passage that isn't there.

The growth of the embryo is illustrated in the Quran by using the word "then" which indicate the sequence of the embryonic stages:

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of a fluid-drop (Arabic, nutfah), then out of a leech-like clot (Arabic, alaqah), then out of a morsel of flesh (Arabic, mugdah), partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you."

(December 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)Thor Wrote: You want to insist the Koran contains "scientific knowledge" the people of the time couldn't possibly have possessed, and the best you can do is trot out some crap about "leech-like clots" and "mingling fluids"? Show us anything in the Koran that talks about microbiology, nuclear energy, radio waves, aerodynamics, plate tectonics, or the Earth revolving around the sun. Good luck with that.

There is more than embryology in the Quran:
http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=ModernScience

(December 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm)Lethe Wrote: Grasping at straws much? You're beginning to adopt the techniques of astrologists. If a passage is made vague enough, accurate interpretations become an impossibility because they don't exist.

1. The Quran is actually more precise in the Arabic language.

2. Even though some of the verses may be vague, no one has yet correctly pointed out a single scientific mistake in the Quran according to my knowledge.

(December 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm)Lethe Wrote: http://pregnancyloss.info/statistics/
And that's in the westernized 21st century.

And what are the chances that Muhammad would see a miscarried fetus from one of his wives just to write it down in the Quran? And if he did that, what will his wife think about him?

(December 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm)Lethe Wrote: Different writers, same concepts, same misguided information.

Maybe similar, but not the same. And the Quran doesn't have any scientific errors unlike the works of Aristotle, Gallen, Hippocrates, and others. Also, there is a lot of historical proof that Muhammad was illiterate and therefore he wouldn't be able to plagiarize anything from the Greeks.

"He was not able to recite any book before this, nor was he able to transcribe with his right hand. If it were so, the talkers of vanity would have surely doubted." (Surah 29:48).

(December 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm)Lethe Wrote: You just asked if his followers would obey his commands if he had been revealed as a liar.

Yes, he would've been exposed as a liar by his own people if his whole life was merely a facade. If he had plagiarized the Quran from any other sources, then he would've been exposed as liar because he was surrounded by pagans, the Christians, the Romans, and disbelievers, and many other enemies who were always trying to to discredit him. Yet, there is not a single report from anyone that he told a lie or that he was untruthful.

The theory that Muhammad authored the Quran or copied from other sources is also disproved by the fact that he was illiterate. If he was not illiterate, as stated in the Quran itself, then it would've been easy to prove this because the life of Muhammad is a well-documented life unlike that of Jesus and the other prophets (peace be upon them).

(December 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm)Ashendant Wrote: Rayan how can you claim the Qu'ran is infallible if it has as many mistakes as the bible?

There are no mistakes in the Quran unlike the Bible.
If you think otherwise, then feel free to point out any of the (alleged) mistakes in the Quran.
______________________________________________________________________________________

And theVoid, I'll reply to some of the things that you wrote in your post after I gather my thoughts together, but not right now since there is a lot of things that I have to explain which you don't know about the the Quran. I'll post my reply at a later time (within the next few days).

It's going to be mainly on two of the claims that you made in your post, which are:

(1) The Quran that we have today never existed during the time of Muhammad (pbuh) and (2) that a "huge portion" of the Quran was taken from the Torah and the New Testament.


While you're waiting for my response, please check out the links below:

Collection and Transmission of the Quran, Quran's Compilation, Q&A, Quran's Preservation and Compilation, The Holy Quran: It's Historical Authenticity
Reply
#27
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 11, 2010 at 9:24 pm)Rayaan Wrote: All the verses in the Quran make perfect sense [...] no one has yet correctly pointed out a single scientific mistake in the Quran according to my knowledge [...] the Quran doesn't have any scientific errors unlike the works of Aristotle, Gallen, Hippocrates, and others [...] There are no mistakes in the Quran unlike the Bible.
Saying so doesn't make it so. Not even if it's said more than once. Like it or not, the Quran's been scrutinized and found highly lacking among skeptics for a work with supposed divine origin.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

Quote:There are only two options: a) Muhammad was a liar, or b) He was self-deceived. But he can't be both at the same time.
A believed lie is still a lie.

... Just like the cake. Shifty

Quote:Also, there is a lot of historical proof that Muhammad was illiterate and therefore he wouldn't be able to plagiarize anything from the Greeks [...] The theory that Muhammad authored the Quran or copied from other sources is also disproved by the fact that he was illiterate.
This was explained in post #14.
"Faith is about taking a comforting, childlike view of a disturbing and complicated world." ~ Edward Current

[Image: Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_by_stampystampy.gif] [Image: 91b7ba0967f80c8c43c58fdf3fa0571a.gif] [Image: Secular_Humanist_by_MaruLovesStamps.gif]
Reply
#28
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 11, 2010 at 9:24 pm)Rayaan Wrote: And theVoid, I'll reply to some of the things that you wrote in your post after I gather my thoughts together, but not right now since there is a lot of things that I have to explain which you don't know about the the Quran. I'll post my reply at a later time (within the next few days).

It's going to be mainly on two of the claims that you made in your post, which are:

(1) The Quran that we have today never existed during the time of Muhammad (pbuh) and (2) that a "huge portion" of the Quran was taken from the Torah and the New Testament.

They are the two most insignificant parts of my response, what matters is your "challenges" proving that Islam could not have been created by Mo and that Fetus formation in the quran is indicative of divinity.

There are the things you opened with as being a part of your concluding that Islam was the product by divinity, so these are the things I want you to address. Address the rest if you like, but don't even try and worm your way out of answering my rebuttals to the aforementioned.
.
Reply
#29
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 11, 2010 at 10:09 pm)Lethe Wrote: Like it or not, the Quran's been scrutinized and found highly lacking among skeptics for a work with supposed divine origin.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

One of the reasons for the apparent contradictions are mainly because they left out certain verses that come before or after the given verses, which are necessary to understand the correct meaning of the passages. Also, the skeptics have used a poor translation from Arabic to English and thereby making it easier to distort the original meaning of the verses.

And I posted links on many of the refutations to the contradiction claims in this thread, 2nd page. You may also point out a specific contradiction in the Quran, if you want to.

(December 12, 2010 at 12:12 am)theVOID Wrote: There are the things you opened with as being a part of your concluding that Islam was the product by divinity, so these are the things I want you to address. Address the rest if you like, but don't even try and worm your way out of answering my rebuttals to the aforementioned.

Yes, I'll address the more significant things also. It's going to take me a while, though.

But it is also important to point out the falsity that the Quran was unwritten during the time of Muhammad (pbuh) and that it was plagiarized from the Bible and the Torah, as you were saying, without giving any support or reasons for saying that. It is important to know the history of the transmission of the Quran before anything else, because if we are going to talk about the possible explanations of the Quran (such as "why it was written" and "who wrote it"), then, we have to evaluate each of the claims based on the most sound and indisputable historical reports.
Reply
#30
RE: Atheism vs. the Quran
(December 11, 2010 at 9:24 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I agree with you, but your comment still doesn't negate what I said earlier, which is:

"There are a lot more authentic historical facts about Muhammad than about Jesus (peace be upon them)."

And I repeat, that's a really low bar.

Quote:All the verses in the Quran make perfect sense and they are presented in a highly poetic style which not even a sane person could produce with a conscious effort.

And I repeat, artists (poets) can't be crazy then? To be more specific, in case you're not understanding me, your logic is because someone writes beautiful poetry, he can't be crazy?

Quote:Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that it's not possible for someone to be mentally crazy and yet hear words in Arabic in such a rhymed fashion as the verses in the Quran (for 23 years).

So, your logic is if someone writes beautiful poetry in Arabic, his native language, and does so for 23 years, he can't possibly be crazy?

Quote:But firstly, you should make up your own mind on which is a more rational theory of the two (liar or lunatic) and then tell me why you think so.

Actually, I'm under no such obligation, any more than you are under any such obligation for "prophets" of religions you don't believe in. Your arguments that Muhammad couldn't possibly have been deluded are underwhelming. What about your arguments that Muhammad couldn't possibly have been a liar?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Does the Quran support Theocracy? Leonardo17 16 623 Yesterday at 11:08 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  New Controversies around the Desecration of the Quran Leonardo17 100 8177 August 20, 2023 at 12:10 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Quran and Hadiths annatar 34 20450 October 11, 2022 at 5:14 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  "Nas" is probably my favorite arabic word in the Quran Woah0 22 1211 August 22, 2022 at 3:19 pm
Last Post: Aegon
  [Quranic reflection]: The Big Bang theory in the Quran. WinterHold 62 4195 June 14, 2022 at 1:21 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How I'd Reveal the Quran To Humanity ReptilianPeon 23 2825 May 11, 2022 at 9:22 pm
Last Post: Cavalry
  2-big bang theory in the Quran mo3taz3nbar 108 48611 April 3, 2022 at 12:09 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  [Quranic Reflection]: Quran vs Hadith- why the Hadith is false WinterHold 176 11488 January 15, 2022 at 2:39 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  [Quranic Reflection]: On reading the Quran.. WinterHold 1 851 July 24, 2021 at 5:23 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
  [Quranic Reflection]: moon absorbed by the sun in the Quran: far future. WinterHold 253 13819 December 18, 2020 at 9:25 pm
Last Post: polymath257



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)